Well, if you had known the the answer to the first question "do you know what a global shutter is?" why would you have made such a statement as this, you would have been sure?

Do you know what a 'global shutter is and how it works'?

Here's a blunt suggestion for you. Read what you have written, to whom, and stop making things up.

So? If you want to compare it to other cameras why not respond to the Op? Why do you persist in responding to me?

How about you, rather than garbling on with your non stop irrelevant responses to me that have absolutely nothing to do with anything I have said actually use your time to learn something?

If you want to know how a Zf compares to the D500 do the research, learn, and respond directly to the Op, if you consider that information may be useful to him. I'm not in the slightest interested. You then may be able to produce something constructive to a thread.

Did you notice the thread title? Did you notice the Op's question in his first post?

So you don't know a lot but still persist in garbling on with your responses to me.

Wow, I've heard complaints about a dog down the road that barks a lot and someone's wife's bad cooking.

How many more clues do you need?

Why do you keep responding to me and garbling on about something totally off topic to the very specific subject I touched on in answer to a specific question, which was, the Zf's AF advantage over certain other Z series cameras.

Go share your opinions regarding T90's, actual practice, balance, retro, long lenses, handles, habits and what you had from 1983 with someone that's interested.

So? I have not got the slightest interest in your opinions regarding some T90 or what you consider regarding retro design.

So?

One very obvious reason could be its AF ability.

The Zf at around $2000 comes with the superb 3D tracking AF which is only available, at present, on the Z8 at $4000 and the Z9 at an even higher cost. For some, this function is an absolute game changer.

Having just had another go to refresh my memory here's the quickest way to do it in PS. Not having lots of images of the same person to hand I just chose 3 images with a full height subject in different positions within the frame and different sizes. Object was to get them all the same height in the centre of a 2x3 vert crop.

a) Place your selected jpeg files (these will be uncropped, colour balanced PPd images) in a folder and for ease name them 1 to 8. (This is not essential)
b) In PS go to File/Scripts/Load Files Into Stack. Select the Files you want to use and select OK.
c) These files will then be loaded into PS as layers showing file names and on top of one another.
See Pic 1 for Info.

d) Select the lower layer by turning off the ones above it and place guide lines as your datum for getting the others to match.
See Pic 2 for Info.

e) Select both lower layer and one above it but reduce this one to 50% opacity. You can then move that layer around and resize as required to obtain good alignment. Repeat for each layer in turn.
See Pic 3 for Info.

f) When all layers are aligned place the crop tool box where you want to crop them.
See Pic 4 for info.

g) Ensure you return opacity of each layer to 100%. Select each layer in turn with all others off. Export each layer in turn to a known folder. They will all be the same pixel width and height and you can change this to whatever you require.

Pic 5 are the results side by side

Pic 1

(Download)

Pic 2

(Download)

Pic 3

(Download)

Pic 4

(Download)

Pic 5

(Download)

Undertook something similar a while ago and from what I recall, all images were opened in PS (following any post work in ACR).

I then selected 1 image and dropped the others onto it one at a time and adjusted their position and scale to match. This is easily done by lowering opacity of each in turn, in addition I placed two guide lines horizontally to assist alignment.

The resulting layers on top of each other were then all cropped, retaining alignment, and then the pixel size of each cropped layer made equal.

The exercise was undertaken to produce equal sized subject and image files to place together to make this banner.

(Download)

In response to a comment that was very clearly to do with a lens that does not extend, really.
Seems there are those that just want to respond to someone's comment for the sake of it, taking absolutely no notice of what that person has said.

If you took some time to read and understand why a comment has been made in reference to someone else's comment you would not need to ask so many questions.

Within this thread larrypage made the following comment'

Note the word "internal", and to this specific comment I made the following response.

You then responded to my comment,

I am not discussing your lens, any lens that extends externally on zooming but solely internal zooming lenses.

But then we will need an Ai APP to make the decision as to whether frame 329,678 is sharper and more pleasing than frame 326,301, or was it frame 302,153?

Interesting to hear the differing views regarding the use of a specific term used in photography. I use the term 'shoot' and 'shooting' regularly to describe the action of taking pictures but have lived in a country for many years where I can't recall a single gun crime.